Tactical Illegal moves

[John Upham]

That is the solution I have suggested. They won't have it.

Hi Nick,

That is because they never thought of it first. Wait a few years till your suggestion is forgotten and then someone at FIDE can take the credit for it.

Nick IS at FIDE as he is secretary of the QC which is a something commission AFAIK.

[NickFaulks]

Bridge has some infractions where the opponents have the option to choose which of a number of different penalties is applied; there might be scope for chess to do that.

To an extent there is. If you just want to get on with the game, you can turn down the extra minutes.

[NickFaulks]

Nick IS at FIDE as he is secretary of the QC which is a something commission AFAIK.

I have done stints as both Secretary and Chairman of Qualification Commission, but that is about titles and ratings. At open meetings of Rules Commission, to the extent that they still happen, I am just another frustrated member of the public.

[Roger de Coverly]

I am not going to identify the player, but I think the year was 1989/90

That was in the earlier days of digital clocks when there was a perception that arbiters would struggle to add time to a digital clock. There was even a tournament where the move rate was x in y plus z and the arbiters couldn't figure out either how to program this directly or how to add z minutes manually.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I am not going to identify the player, but I think the year was 1989/90"

I have forgotten who the player was, but the date sounds about right, at Hastings I think.

[Paul McKeown]

I think the understanding of the Laws displayed by the correspondents here is not entirely correct.

The penalties that can be imposed by an arbiter include:

12.9.3 reducing the remaining time of the offending player,

If the arbiter believes that the illegal move has been deliberate, then rather than, or indeed in addition to, adding time to the opponent's remaining playing time, the arbiter should ensure that the offending player gains no benefit from his or her actions, and application of 12.9.3 might reasonably come into play.

After all,

The arbiter shall:

12.2.1 ensure fair play,

12.2.2 act in the best interest of the competition,

All quotes are from the current FIDE handbook.

[NickFaulks]

The penalties that can be imposed by an arbiter include:

12.9.3 reducing the remaining time of the offending player,

I agree with all of the above post, but it just isn't going to happen.

In any case, I don't believe it is right for a player to benefit from playing an illegal move even when it is a genuine error.

[Paul McKeown]

I agree with all of the above post, but it just isn't going to happen.

It does require a tough-minded arbiter, or a larger tournament with a chief arbiter who is going to back the judgment of the floor arbiters. However, it does happen, particularly when a player begins to acquire a negative reputation amongst organisers and arbiters. Normally arbiters will give players the benefit of the doubt, as intent is hard to ascribe. After one indiscretion too many, most arbiters are going to decide that there is a pattern of behaviour and take a tougher line.

Few are going to punish a one-off honest blunder as you, however, would appear to desire. That would require a restatement of the Laws to a more punitive regime. Good arbiters generally believe that the less often they intervene and the minimum impact they have when they do, the better, chess supposedly being a game between two players.

[NickFaulks]

Few are going to punish a one-off honest blunder as you, however, would appear to desire.

"Honest blunders" are generally punished. With seconds left on your clock, if you put your queen on a square where it can be taken for nothing, your punishment is that you play on without your queen and will almost certainly lose. If you do the same with your king, you are rewarded with extra thinking time while the mechanism for dealing with illegal moves swings into action. This is what I have never understood.

I have been in this position, my opponent made an illegal move, I immediately put their king back where it was and pressed the clock. The game continued without rancour. Had they insisted that the clock be stopped while the arbiter was called, I would have smelt a rat.

[Roger de Coverly]

If you do the same with your king, you are rewarded with extra thinking time while the mechanism for dealing with illegal moves swings into action. This is what I have never understood.

Arbiters have a couple of pet obsessions which I suppose they teach potential new ones at arbiting seminars. One is the aversion to using an upturned rook as a second queen. Another is the ban on taking the king in five minute chess at least.

[Alex McFarlane]

Arbiters have a couple of pet obsessions

That is quite a generalisation!

Both of the stated have some merit. How much merit is open to discussion!!

In the case of the upturned rook, when it was still understood to be a queen I did see a player stalemate his opponent because he had thought of it as a rook. Whether we should protect players from their own stupidity is another matter.

The logic in not allowing a king capture is actually quite sound. You capture the opposing king. Your opponent then claims you have played an illegal move, not because you took the king but because (they claim) the king was not on that square. By taking the king off the board you have destroyed your own case. That was a rare occurrence but I experienced it once or twice a year.

[NickFaulks]

The logic in not allowing a king capture is actually quite sound. You capture the opposing king. Your opponent then claims you have played an illegal move, not because you took the king but because (they claim) the king was not on that square. By taking the king off the board you have destroyed your own case.

I have never understood this argument - surely it would apply far more generally.

Suppose I play Rf1-f7, taking your knight. You may bleat that the knight was actually on e7, but the evidence is gone.

[Alex McFarlane]

True. But in my experience in adult chess this is less likely to happen. Junior chess is another matter.

Often in adult chess a conclusion can be reached with a reasonable amount of certainty when it happens at other points in the game. I did have one similar case where a bishop was involved. When I asked one player at what point the bishops were on the same coloured squares his protests became somewhat muted.
With pieces other than the king the position a move or two back is more likely to be agreed, usually because of where the pieces came from.

[NickFaulks]

With pieces other than the king the position a move or two back is more likely to be agreed, usually because of where the pieces came from.

Can't say I'm fully convinced.

I think Stewart once gave me a Rules Commission argument against taking of kings ( not just tradition! ). I can't remember what it was but don't think it was that.

[Paul McKeown]

I actually agree that the standard reason given for declaring the capture of the king as illegal ("it makes it difficult to reconstruct") has always been rather weak. I strongly felt that it was wrong when it would have lead to the loss of a blitz game in the past (the second last illegal move thus winning). However, now that all forms of the game are standardised on two illegal moves losing, I'm not really too fussed.